What do you need to improve? You might be learning a musical instrument, trying to practice your sport, working on a personal habit, or reviewing a work project but all these diverse pursuits have a common need if you want to get better. You need to review what you have done and work out how to progress.

This is the simple premise behind the concept of continuous improvement, a critical element of deliberate practice and fundamental to having a growth mindset. And it is not just on the individual level. High-performing teams achieve their level through the pursuit of better. And we all know that right? So why is the process often so difficult?

Well, we will come on to some of the challenges later but my experience as a leadership coach, a senior manager and from competing in high-level sports is that there are three powerful questions that can unlock high performance in individuals and teams.

The challenge with reviews

I know how important it is to review and improve performance, but my heart often sinks when I see a review session in my diary. And, if I get a pop-up message on my screen or an email in my inbox asking me to fill out a questionnaire, it is rare for me to engage with it. Why is that?

The main challenge is time. Often requests to fill in questionnaires will try to be reassuring by saying “it will only take 10-15 minutes to complete” whereas I am thinking of a million other things I could be doing with that time. Then there is the problem of review overload. Everyone wants feedback and online systems make it much easier for businesses to ask. Whatever product or service you purchase, no matter how small, is likely to prompt a request for your opinion. This bombardment can instil a negative association with the feedback process, and that’s a problem.

The challenge is that we can feel that way with things that really matter to us, such as our personal development or our performance at work. This challenge is multiplied even further if you are a manager or trying to lead a team through a review process.

When you should hold a review

So, when it comes to things that do matter to us and that we should review then we must be smart about it. The timing and the time involved are both vital. The timing is critical because a review should be conducted as soon as feasible after the event so that the details – including the feelings – are still fresh. The time is important as it needs to be concise. The exact amount of time will be dependent – and largely relative to – the importance and size of the thing we are reviewing. For example, we might only need a few seconds to review our choice of coffee in the morning, but we would probably want a larger amount of time set aside for that six-month work project.

It is worth mentioning that as well as these post-event reviews it is also worth planning for periodic times of reflection. At the micro level these can happen daily (and this is where journaling can really help) but I also find it helpful to do personal reviews about every six months, and I usually do these on vacation or on a specific retreat.

At work, it is usual to have some sort of annual review but as an employee or line manager, you don’t want to wait a whole year to work out whether your performance is up to scratch. Little and often is generally a better approach with a more formal and in-depth review (usually backed up with a written report) in the 6 and 12 monthly timeframes.

The simplest way to run a review session

When it comes to a review process, I like to take Einstein’s principle of:

“Make things as simple as possible but no simpler.”

In other words, it should be concise, and to the point, but still provide the feedback we need. If the process is too complicated or long, then it is hard to get the engagement required for quality criticism.

I have led or been involved with many review processes, from taking large organisations through strategic overhauls to coaching individuals on achieving personal goals. At either end of the spectrum, I find that the process largely boils down to three important questions:

• What should we stop doing?
• What should we continue doing?
• What should we start doing?

Continuing with the ‘Rule of 3’, I equate the process to a set of traffic lights. The red, amber, and green lights become:

• Red – What should we stop?
• Amber – What should we maintain?
• Green – What should we start?

The great thing about this system is it is simple to remember and largely self-explanatory but let’s look at some examples under each heading.

Red – What should we stop?

If we want to improve then there are always things that we need to stop doing, whether as a team or an individual.

Sometimes these are obviously negative things. For example, if our personal goal is to lose weight then we probably need to stop eating those sweet treats. If a team culture is poor then we might need to stop negative behaviour such as talking negatively about people rather than having the necessary challenging conversation.

But not all things that we need to stop are wrong in themselves. As highlighted earlier, time is vital. It is the one finite resource, so sometimes we need to stop good things to allow us to concentrate on the most important thing. As Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, famously put it:

“Don’t let the good be the enemy of the great.”

This concept is critical to good prioritisation. Thus, work out what you need to stop, in order to put first things first.

Amber – What should we maintain?

The amber light prompts us to think, should we keep going or not? In the review process, it allows us to identify the things we should keep doing, at least for now. A lot of things generally fall into this category, so it is worth concentrating on the things that generate the most progress overall.

Therefore ask, what are the activities that have the greatest effect? Which behaviours are creating the optimum culture? Which habits are building towards success?

Use these questions to identify the things that are giving you positive momentum. Referring back to Jim Collins again, these are the actions that become the fly-wheel; small activities that can build momentum and eventually drive you forward. Or as Darren Hardy, author of The Compound Effect puts it:

“Consistency is the key to achieving and maintaining momentum.”

So, what are the things that if you keep doing them consistently will help you achieve your aim?

Green – What should we start?

Finally, the green light is to highlight new things to start. This can sometimes be related to red and amber issues. For example, you might want to stop something (a red issue) to allow more time to do something you already know to be positive (in the amber).

This green zone is also a place for creativity. Active experimentation is one of the vital steps in Kolb’s learning cycle, in other words, without experimenting we don’t actually progress. Hence, it is important to brainstorm new ways to approach the challenge, give it a go, and fail if necessary.

It’s worth noting that this principle is also key to the lean start-up methodology of build, measure, learn or the agile approach where trying, testing, and reviewing are fundamental to the process. Therefore, keep trying new things until you find the ones that work. Or as Thomas Edison (oh yes, he of the lightbulb legend) exclaimed:

“There is a way to do it better — find it!”

Failing is fine, but review what you have done if you want to fail forwards

Leadership guru John Maxwell agreed with Edison when he suggested:

“Fail early, fail often, but always fail forward”

Having an effective review process allows us to do just that. We need to act, we need to experiment, but we need to reflect on what we have done if we don’t want failure to undermine our progress.

So, use the traffic light system to focus on the most important questions to consider. Ask yourself or your team:

• Red – What should stop?
• Amber – What should keep happening?
• Green – What could be started?

You can take a few seconds even now to think about your day. Ask yourself these three questions and see if you need to adapt your priorities. It’s a great exercise, even if just to confirm you are on the right track!

My work falls into several key roles. I lead an organisation, and run my own business, I coach senior managers and I also facilitate leadership courses for various corporations. With a couple of decades of management experience under my belt, I have found that certain tools and approaches really help me on a weekly (even daily) basis. So why not share them with you?

I have picked my top 10 (because, hey, we all like top-ten lists, right?) so this is not exhaustive, but it is representative of the mental models that I use the most. You will likely recognise a few tools from the list but equally, hopefully, there are some new gems to be found or reminded of.

I have included a short explanation of each model but there are also links to longer articles on each tool if you want to explore them further.

The Rule of 3 – for simple, impactful written and verbal communication

I love the rule of 3 because it is utterly simple and yet undeniably effective. The rule of three is the phenomenon that information, clustered in threes, makes communications clearer, more memorable, and impactful. There is a long history of using this tool, reaching back to Aristotle and perhaps further. To find out how to apply to rule to your writing, decision-making and public speaking, take a look at The Rule of 3: An Easy Hack to Improve Your Communication.

The Right Questions – for decision-making and planning

I developed this approach for making decisions and plans through my work as a Bomb Disposal Officer. By using the seven main interrogatives in the English language as a mental prompt, and applying the questions in a suitable order, it creates a simple system to think through a choice and come up with a plan of action. The framework looks like this:

• Why? (Purpose, Values, Priorities): Why is this important?
• Where? (Situation, Vision) Where have we come from, where are we now and where do we want to go?
• What? (Mission, Goal) What does success look like?
• Which? (Options, Risk) In which ways could we achieve our goal?
• How? (Resources, Plan) How do we get to our destination (what steps and resources do we need)?
• Who? (Network, Team) Who can help us achieve the goal?
• When? (Timing, Scheduling) When is the best time to achieve the tasks and how long will it take to succeed?

You can read more in What are the Right Questions for Decision Making and Strategic Planning?

The Eisenhower Matrix – a tool for effective prioritising

I first came across the Eisenhower Matrix over two decades ago when I first read Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. I have been using the system ever since to help me think about my task list and how to prioritise things. The two-by-two matrix is composed of thinking about what is important and what is urgent. This creates four ways to categorise and prioritise our tasks:

1. Urgent and Important. Do these tasks now.
2. Not urgent but important. Plan time to do these tasks.
3. Urgent but not important. Try to delegate these tasks.
4. Not urgent and not important. Avoid these activities.

5:5 Breathing Technique – to help your emotional management

Various scientific studies have shown the effectiveness of using breathing techniques to manage our emotional states. When a crisis hits, or you feel yourself losing your cool then the best thing to do is employ a proven breathing technique. The thing is, to truly be effective, you need to have practised beforehand. My favourite technique is 5:5 breathing where I breathe in for a slow count of five and then breath out for a slow count of five. If you would like to know some variations to this technique (and how tracing your hand can make it even more impactful) then read How to Use Simple Breathing Techniques to Reduce Stress.

The Kolb Learning Cycle – for experiential learning and a growth mindset

We learn through experience and the Kolb cycle helps is to ensure that we learn effectively by making us aware of the critical stages. The order is not important but we need to go through all four phases of the cycle if we are to truly learn. So, if you do not want to waste a learning opportunity then you need to check off these four elements:

1. Concrete Experience – having some sort of new experience
2. Reflective Observation – assessing the experience against existing knowledge
3. Abstract Conceptualisation – generating new mental models
4. Active experimentation – applying new methods to the experience

There are also four learning styles that complement these phases. The idea is that we all have a preferred learning style and you can find out more in How to Boost Your Growth Mindset with Kolb’s Learning Cycle.

The SWOT Analysis – a tool to improve your situational analysis

The SWOT analysis is one of the best know conceptual tools there is. Some people might discount it because it is so frequently mentioned or used, but this would be a mistake. The SWOT analysis is popular because – as with the best management tools – it is so simple and effective. It is brilliant for getting a snapshot of a situation. SWOT stands for:

• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• Opportunities
• Threats

Strengths and weaknesses are internal factors whereas opportunities and threats are external factors. One of the most beneficial elements of this tool is looking at the links and relationships between these four quadrants. And, even though the SWOT tool was designed for use with businesses I also highly recommend it as a personal tool. Do a quick SWOT analysis on yourself; it’s great for self-awareness.

The GROW Model – a tool for setting goals and coaching others

Sir John Whitmore’s GROW model, along with the SWOT analysis, is one of the best know conceptual tools used in the workplace. The GROW model was developed as a coaching tool but has been widely accepted as a tool for all managers and I frequently teach it in leadership courses. The GROW method provides an easy-to-follow framework for coaching someone to achieve something. GROW stands for:

• Goal – identify the vision and set the task
• Reality – consider the present situation and its factors (the SWOT analysis can help here)
• Options – look at different ways to achieve the goal
• Will – commit to achieving the goal and plan the first steps

As a manager, you can use this method to coach people through objectives at work and works very well alongside the SMARTER delegation method outlined below.

SMART (and SMARTER) tasks – to ensure effective delegation

The more responsibility I take on, the more I have to delegate. The thing is, if I fail to delegate work effectively then I will end up with just as much work (if not more) in the end. Therefore, it is critical to define tasks effectively when assigning work. The SMART and SMARTER acronyms are really helpful reminders of what is needed to create an achievable goal. Talking through these elements with the person taking on the job also gets their buy-in to the activity and creates agreement around the parameters of the work. SMART stands for:

• Specific,
• Measurable,
• Attainable,
• Relevant and
• Time-bound

You can also add an optional E of Evaluate and R or Re-Evaluate to create a SMARTER task with planned review points. I would wholeheartedly recommend this, and the Traffic Light system (below) can complement this evaluation process.

The Traffic Lights Review Tool – for reviewing projects, progress, and performance

As seen from the Kolb learning cycle, if we want to improve performance, we need to reflect on what we have done before and learn from the experience. It is also evident, from the SMARTER delegation technique, that planning in evaluation points will support the successful achievement of a task. Therefore, we need to constantly review performance in a simple, effective and time-efficient manner. This can be done by using the Traffic Light approach which prompts the three critical questions to cover in a review process:

• Red: what should we stop doing?
• Amber: what should we continue doing?
• Green: what should we start doing?

For further explanation and examples take a look at The 3 Most Powerful Questions for Continual Improvement.

The SCARF Model – to improve your social interactions

The SCARF model is a tool I have come across more recently as I have become more interested in the psychology and neuroscience behind how we behave at work and in our relationships. It was developed by neuro-scientist David Rock to explain how we interact with people in social engagements and why our body and brain interpret social threats in the same way as physical threats. His research came up with five factors that can impact whether we find a social situation positive or negative. These make the acronym SCARF which stands for:

• Status – where we feel in the pecking order
• Certainty – how sure we feel about the future
• Autonomy – the level of choice and agency we have
• Relatedness – how connected we feel to others
• Fairness – whether we perceive something to be equitable

The science behind this is fascinating and, when understood, can improve relationships, and help to stop explosive, damaging, or uncomfortable social interactions. You can find out more in How to Stop Your Primal Brain from Hijacking You at Work.

A starter for 10: which do you want to experiment with?

If there is something new here for you, then I recommend experimenting with the tools and seeing how it goes. Be playful with it, adapt it to your needs, and if it doesn’t work, put it on the shelf and try something else. Part of the fun of working life is this learning journey where we find new ideas, experiment, and grow. As we develop as individuals, we get better at what we do. Everyone – our bosses, colleagues, and teams – benefit. We also benefit if we enjoy what we do and get the satisfaction of improving our performance and achieving new things.

So have a play. And if you could make your own list, what would it have on it?

I once had to suspend a member of my team in the middle of delivering an important project. It was a difficult decision and painful for everyone involved, but it needed to happen. The actions of this individual had eroded the bond of trust that they had with the rest of the group. As a result, the whole team was no longer working effectively. If the individual was allowed to continue, the productivity of the whole organisation would have been undermined. Trust in the leadership, team discipline and work processes would have been damaged.

The behaviour of the individual had impacted output but, in the end, it was all about trust. Trust takes time to build and a moment to lose. Helping to reinforce trust within a team, and to avoid these breaches of trust, is a vital part of a manager’s role. That is because where there is a lack of trust there will also be a lack of high performance.

Even without this example, we all know that trust is important in any relationship. But what do we mean by trust? How would you define it? And having defined it, what can we do to develop trust in our relationships at work?

Defining trust

Trust can be thought of as faith, belief, or hope. It is the feeling of confidence that we have in a person, organisation, or thing. Trust has both a logical and emotional quality. We choose to trust a thing because of how we think and how we feel.

In relationships, trust is foundational, whether that is with friends and family, or with colleagues at work. In the context of relationships trust can be defined as:

“The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the action of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action.”

Aljazzaf, Oerry, Capretz (2010)

So, whether we are starting to get to know someone and building rapport, or maintaining a long-lasting relationship, trust is critical. But, knowing this, how do you develop a culture of trust and psychological safety in the workplace?

The neuroscience of trust

The first thing we need to understand is how our brains work when it comes to putting faith in someone. Paul J. Zak has spent many years studying the neuroscience of trust. His research has centred around how higher levels of trust are linked to the brain producing higher levels of oxytocin.

It is great knowing that oxytocin helps to develop trust, but it is unlikely that we will be wanting to dose ourselves with synthetic hormones just to be more trusting! Fortunately, during his research, patterns emerged of actions that promoted oxytocin levels (positive behaviours) and things that inhibited its production (such as high stress). These were narrowed down to eight key behaviours to foster trust.

The 8 behaviours that foster trust in the workplace

So here are the eight behaviours, identified by Paul Zak, that can help to release oxytocin naturally and build a more trusting and effective culture in the workplace:

1. Recognise excellence
2. Induce “challenge stress” (difficult but achievable tasks)
3. Give people discretion in how they do their work
4. Enable job crafting (let employees choose projects to work on)
5. Share information broadly
6. Intentionally build relationships
7. Facilitate whole-person growth
8. Show vulnerability

Let’s expand each one a little more.

1.     Recognise excellence.

Public recognition of someone, when they have achieved something, can be a huge boost to oxytocin. If the praise is unexpected and personal it is even more powerful. Such recognition also boosts confidence.

2.     Induce “challenge stress”.

Challenge stress is the idea of setting difficult but achievable tasks. These stretch targets prompt personal growth and team development as they require focus and collaboration. These are the BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goals) championed by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great. The balance here is to find the right level of challenge so as not to push people into negative stress and therefore managers should monitor such goals and adjust them accordingly.

3.     Give people discretion in how they do their work.

If people feel empowered to do work in their way, they are likely to be more motivated and therefore more productive. This trust and freedom have also been shown to improve creativity and innovation. The opposite of this autonomy is when people are micro-managed which has opposite effects.

4.     Enable job crafting.

Job crafting goes beyond discretion about how they do tasks and takes this further to allow employees to choose which projects to work on. Not surprisingly, people work harder on the things they care about. Google has famously championed this way of working, allowing employees to pursue personal projects for 20% of their time alongside normal responsibilities. The challenge for the leader is to align people with their passions while covering all the operational outputs required of a team.

5.     Share information broadly.

People like to be informed; conversely, they hate it if they feel kept in the dark, even if unintentionally. This is because we all need levels of certainty to avoid negative stress. To build trust, organisations need to be open about goals, strategies, and even challenges.

6.     Intentionally build relationships.

Relatedness is important. We all want to feel part of something. But you must be intentional about building a sense of belonging to build high-performing teams. Creating social events and opportunities for social interaction is very important. As mentioned earlier, achieving challenging tasks also helps build and deepen these relationships.

7.     Facilitate whole-person growth.

Good leaders have and promote a growth mindset. They help people to develop personally as well as professionally. They also do not limit a person’s growth to the opportunities available within their organisation. Work-life balance, considerations such as family and health, should sit alongside discussions about performance for a person to feel truly valued and supported.

8.     Show vulnerability.

Finally, people need to show each other vulnerability. Opening up to someone (in an emotionally intelligent way) is an act of trust in itself. As Brené Brown highlights in her book Dare to Lead, when a leader shows vulnerability – when they are truthful about what they don’t know, acknowledge mistakes, or ask for advice from subordinates – it actually promotes credibility and strengthens team bonds.

Encouraging positive behaviours in your team

Whether you are a leader, a team member, or a freelancer working with multiple clients, building trust is vital to effective work environments. Therefore, if you want to have good relationships and high-performing teams, seek to build trust through these 8 behaviours:

1. Recognise excellence
2. Induce “challenge stress” (difficult but achievable tasks)
3. Give people discretion in how they do their work
4. Enable job crafting (let employees choose projects to work on)
5. Share information broadly
6. Intentionally build relationships
7. Facilitate whole-person growth
8. Show vulnerability

If you are intrigued by the mindset of trust then I recommend you read How to Stop Your Primal Brain from Hijacking You at Work which explores neuroscientist David Rock’s SCARF model and the psychology behind our social connectivity. This will really help you improve your one-to-one as well as your team interactions.

You are away from home and need to go and see a doctor. How do you know whom to trust to help you? You look up local clinics on the internet and find two options. On one website there is a picture of someone, straight-faced, in casual clothes, accompanied by a short statement of them telling you how good a doctor they think they are. The other site has a picture of a smiling doctor (we know this as they are wearing a white coat with a stethoscope draped around their neck). In the background, we can see various certificates and below the picture is a description of how the staff care about you and your well-being. Which doctor do you choose? Which do you trust?

This is a hypothetical example, but it does demonstrate that knowing whom to trust is a vital part of our decision-making. Therefore, it is no real surprise that neurologically we have developed powerful mechanisms to assess how trustworthy people are. But explaining how this psychology works is slightly harder as the brain works largely intuitively in assessing whether we should trust someone or not.

Fortunately, research has shown that there are common elements at work when we analyse trust. Whether that is for a person we have just met or someone we have known or worked with for a while, it turns out that this feeling is based on some factors that can be measured. And this is where the Trust Equation comes in.

The Trust Equation – understanding the psychology of trust

The Trust Equation was developed by Charles H. Green, co-author of The Trusted Advisor, along with David Maister and Robert M. Galford. They explored the psychology of trust by looking at professional services and how people relate to one another. The result of this study was the Trust Equation.

The equation is actually a measure of trustworthiness, in other words, how much trust we are willing to invest in a person. In this context, to have trust between two parties, you need someone who is trusting and another person who is trustworthy. The equation gets to the heart of that relationship.

Equation of Trustworthiness:

Trust (or Trustworthiness) = (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy)/Self-Orientation

For clarity, it is worth exploring the terms that Green uses in the equation as some may not be immediately clear. To make things very practical, here are some questions you can ask to think about how someone might score against each of these terms.

Credibility (words)

• Is the person professionally credible; do they live up to their CV?
• Do the person’s words fit their actions?

Reliability (actions)

• Are they dependable?
• Will they do what they promise?

Intimacy (feelings)

• Do you feel safe or secure around the person?
• Do you trust that person with confidential or personal information?

Self-orientation

• Is a person self-centred, putting themselves before the needs of the vision and team?
• Are they self-obsessed (always framing an issue from their own perspective) or do they look at a situation more broadly?

As mentioned before, our brains usually intuitively make this calculation but, with the equation, you can quantify each factor by giving it a numerical value (1-10) for the answer to each question.

The Trust Equation (explained in less than 5 minutes)

Examples using the Trust Equation

Let’s explore this with a couple of examples.

Example 1

Firstly, let’s examine how we might perceive the local barista who serves us our coffee in the morning. I am thinking of one in my favourite coffee shop. How do they score on credibility? Well, their claim to be a barista is backed up by the fact that they work in a good café, and I have seen them serve great coffee. Therefore, let’s give them 8 out of 10. In terms of reliability, whenever someone asks for their double-shot latté that’s exactly what they get (and it tastes good too!). So, 9 out of 10 here. In terms of intimacy, I don’t know them well enough to share all my personal life with them, but they do smile, say a warm hello and address me by my name. They make me feel good, thus, let’s make that 7 out of 10. By contrast, the score for self-orientation will be low as whenever I see this person, they are always serving other people. They are asking what other people want, not talking about themselves, so we can give them a 2 out of 10. Using the equation this becomes:

(8+9+7)/2 = 12

Example 2

Now let’s take a contrasting situation. Picture a politician whom you know of but don’t necessarily follow closely. I have one in mind. This person has been a politician for some time so there is credibility there, but they have also changed their messaging on certain issues. So, for credibility, we can give them a 6. This variation in what they say and do also impacts their reliability score as I don’t feel that they will do as they promise. Therefore, this might be a score of 5. In terms of intimacy, I don’t feel I have any real connection with this person. Would I feel safe with them? I would like to think so, but I still can’t give them more than a 6. For self-orientation, the score must be higher than the barista as, even though they are a public servant, I recall that when I have seen them in interviews, they are often defending themselves. Thus, here I would give them a 7. Now, using the equation we have:

(6+5+6)/7 = 2.4

How do we compare trust equation scores?

This prompts some interesting reflections. The scoring indicates that I trust the barista more than four times more than the politician. In some ways, this is true as I have a closer personal relationship with the barista, even if it is just because we know each other’s names. And I really like coffee.

But here we expose a problem. Even though we are giving a quantitative score to trust, this is impacted by qualitative feelings and influenced by cognitive bias. The barista gives me a lovely coffee every time I see them. That has a powerfully positive anchoring effect. By contrast, the politician suffers from negativity biasas I see them on the news which is emotionally negative. Also, if I am honest, I go to that coffee shop as it is the sort of place ‘people like me’ go to. This means I have an in-group bias towards that barista, but an out-group bias against a politician that belongs to a political party I don’t usually support.

Finding the right comparisons

Here we have illustrated what is good news for baristas but a perennial problem for politicians. We generally love the experience of getting a coffee but are less keen on politics. As our elected leaders feel ever more distant, and all we see are the U-turns in policy or the sound bites on the news, it becomes very hard to build trust with the electorate.

By contrast, we might feel that we generally trust doctors or teachers, but that is often because we have some personal contact with these people and even if we don’t know them personally we hold their qualifications (and therefore their credibility) in high regard.

It is important to note that this comparison of the barista to a politician is also unfair. Trust is also contextual. If the barista suddenly ran for political office, then we are likely to see their scores change, particularly in the realms of credibility. A fairer, and more useful comparison would be scoring one barista against another and one politician against another. That better explains why we might choose one café over another or vote for one representative rather than another.

Applying the trust equation

We all have an intuitive feeling when we trust people but sometimes, particularly when we are unsure of our feelings, it is worth quantifying them. Understanding the trust equation can help do just this and assess the levels of trust that you have with an individual or team.

Remember:

Trust (or Trustworthiness) = (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy)/Self-Orientation

Why not experiment with the equation now? You can score someone you are thinking about (to better analyse that relationship) or you can score your team culture to examine the levels of trust within your workplace. Finally, you can also use this as a self-reflection exercise and examine how you perform in each area. Remember to think of evidence – of actual experiences – to back up your scores.

The term Adaptive Leadership was coined by Harvard University professor Ron Heifetz in his 1994 book, Leadership Without Easy Answers. The theory of Adaptive Leadership addresses the strategic question of how to mobilise people to adapt to change.

We don’t have to think too far back to realise how important this concept is. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how important it is to quickly adapt to new and fast-evolving circumstances. The Harvard Business Review was just one of the voices advocating Adaptive Leadership as the right sort of leadership model to assist in these sorts of situations.

But, Adaptive Leadership is not just relevant to crisis management. The pace of change in the business sphere demands an adaptive approach. For example, take the development of smartphones a decade ago, or now, the progression of AI; organisations that ignore these seismic technological shifts only put themselves in peril.

So how do we change and adapt to challenging environments? Ron Heifetz set out 5 strategic principles to guide leaders, and their teams, through this process.

5 strategic principles of Adaptive Leadership

These are the five strategic principles in simple terms:

1. Diagnose the situation.
2. Manage distress.
3. Identify distractions.
4. Delegate effectively.
5. Encourage challenge.

Heifetz’s original wording was more lengthy, and each concept needs a little more unpacking, so let’s look at each in more detail.

1. Diagnose the situation

The first step is problem diagnosis and understanding the situation. In the words of Heifetz:

“Diagnose the situation in light of the values at stake, and unbundle the issues involved.”

To analyse the circumstances Heifetz uses a simple problem typology and asks, what sort of problem do you face? Is it a technical or adaptive challenge? In this simple approach, a technical issue already has a known solution. These sorts of problems require management. Adaptive challenges are problems which have no precedent (such as AI) or ones that continue to evolve (like a pandemic) and therefore require leadership to address them. In this way, Heifetz reflects Keith Grint’s problem typology and technical issues are the same as tame problems, and adaptive challenges are synonymous with wicked problems.

One thing a leader can do to help at this stage is to ‘get on the balcony’ rather than being stuck ‘in the dance.’ In other words, a leader needs to take a physical or mental step back to gain perspective and assess the issue, slightly apart from the frenetic activity of the team. This concept is often referred to as leadership from the balcony and dance.

2. Manage distress

The need for change can lead to resistance and distress. People don’t resist change per se, in fact, people frequently embrace change when they see it as positive. For example, few people will turn down a pay rise!

But change can challenge values, assumptions and beliefs and therein lies the potential for conflict. Factions can form within a team, similar to the innovators, early adopters or laggards of the technological life cycle. The laggards bring dissent and resistance that provokes further discord.

Therefore, the leader must keep casting the vision and assessing the workforce in how they are progressing through the adoption curve. It requires judgement to do this and set the right pace for change. The Iceberg Model is a useful tool to help analyse these sorts of stresses.

Here, the ideal that Heifetz is expounding is to:

“Keep the level of distress within tolerable limits for doing adaptive work.”

Heifetz uses a pressure cooker analogy. The leader aims to keep the pressure up without allowing the vessel to blow up.

3. Identify distractions

The next step is to ensure that attention is focused on developing issues and not on less important distractions. Here once again the leader needs to do some diagnosis and identify which issues currently engage attention and differentiate between what is important and what is a distraction. When people find change difficult, they can adopt negative behaviours such as denying the issue, problem misdiagnosis, blaming others, delaying progress, or similar avoidance tactics. As Heifetz says:

“Identify the issues that engage the most attention and counteract avoidance mechanisms such as denial, scapegoating, pretending the problem is technical, or attacking individuals rather than issues.”

These negative behaviours must be identified, understood (once again, the Iceberg Model is useful here) and then challenged, to bring people back to the main issue.

4. Delegate effectively

One effective way of keeping people mission-focused is effective delegation. If you can give people tasks that allow them ownership of the problem – or at least keep them focussed on addressing it – then this will help to minimise distractions.

In my experience, it is productive for a leader to delegate to the point of pain, but only that far. In other words, it should be a little uncomfortable for the leader, who must trust the team member and also challenging for the individual being tasked, as the activity should stretch them. Or as Heifetz puts it:

“Allow people to take responsibility for the problem, but at a rate they can handle.”

In this way, the leader can place responsibility on the whole team while at the same time allowing development opportunities. But once again, the pressure cooker analogy applies. The team is put under stress to deal with the problem, but the leader needs to monitor levels of distress.

5. Encourage challenge

Voices of dissent can cause problems for leaders who are trying to encourage change, but a leader also must protect individuals who challenge them. This can be uncomfortable at times as these people can be a source of frustration to a person in authority, and destabilising for the team. Such people often seem unreasonable, but as George Bernard Shaw observed:

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Organisations need people to challenge them, and all teams need atmospheres of psychological safety where members can raise objections or new ideas. Therefore, the leader has to:

“Protect those who raise hard questions, generate distress, and challenge people to rethink the issues at stake.”

These people, who bring the hard questions, are often leaders in their own right.

The difference between authority and leadership

And here Heifetz draws the distinction between leadership and authority. An authority is a decision maker, someone with a specific leadership role and responsibility within a structure. These formal structures are important for bringing direction, protection, and continuity to a team. But leadership can come from anyone, even outside of these formal structures. Leaders bring influence and provoke change, no matter their role. Leadership should be encouraged throughout an organisation to ensure innovation, creativity, and challenge to the status quo. These individuals, demonstrating this sort of leadership, will often have the freedom to provoke rethinking that authorities lack.

How to develop Adaptive Leadership

So, to become a leader who can effectively navigate change, adopt the five principles of Adaptive Leadership:

1. Diagnose the situation.
2. Manage distress.
3. Identify distractions.
4. Delegate effectively.
5. Encourage challenge.

In today’s rapidly changing environment – in business, politics or life – we must learn to adjust quickly and positively. In the words of the (unofficial) Marine Corps motto, as espoused by Clint Eastwood as Gunny Highway in heartbreak ridge,

“You adapt, you overcome, you improvise!”

When you can do this, and encourage others to do the same, then you are on the way to becoming an Adaptive Leader.

The Skill-Will Matrix is a situational leadership model, made popular by Max Landsberg in his book The Tao of Coaching (2003). The Skill-Will method is easy to remember and apply, and that is why it remains popular with managers. The approach is primarily used to help identify the leadership style best suited to a given team member, but it can also help managers consider the performance management of their employees.

Situational leadership is a type of leadership theory that advocates for leaders to adapt their management approach to fit the circumstances. The premise is that there is no single correct way to lead in every situation as people, challenges and events are in flux. Therefore, good leaders use their judgement and flex their style according to the needs of the situation.

The Skill-Will method is similar to the classic Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model but differs in the respect that its focuses on the subject (the employee) rather than the leader (or employer).

The 4 quadrants and leadership styles of the skill-will matrix

The skill-will matrix is a simple way to assess the right leadership style according to an individual or team’s level of will (motivation) or skill (competence). It is easily visualised as a two-by-two table with one axis being will (low and high) and the other axis being skill (low and high).

The matrix then proposes the best leadership style for a person, depending on where the subject falls in the four quadrants:

• Low-will/low-skill: Direct
• High-will/low-skill: Guide
• Low-will/high-skill: Excite
• High-will/high-skill: Delegate

You can see this illustrated in the picture below.

Here is a further explanation of each of the four quadrants and the related leadership styles.

Low-will and low-skill: Direct

When someone has low levels of competence or motivation, then they fall into the low-will/low-skill quadrant. The leader needs to Direct team members in this category. In other words, the manager needs to explain tasks carefully and in detail, set clear deadlines and guidelines, and then monitor closely. Setting SMART or SMARTER tasks (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-based, evaluated, and re-evaluated) is essential.

This type of leadership takes the most time and effort of any of the four quadrants and therefore is generally less preferable. A leader who remains in a directive mode of leadership also runs the risk of micro-managing employees if they apply this style in the wrong circumstances.

A classic example of someone in the low-will/low-skill section of the matrix would be someone new to the workplace. These employees need time and training so they can develop their skills. They also need support and encouragement so they can grow in confidence and motivation.

Though this most commonly applies to new workers, low performers generally also fall into this space. Over time a manager could have tried to help the team member progress beyond this quadrant, but it does not always work out. When this is the case, it can be best for the individual to move elsewhere. Sometimes there is a personality clash, so it is worth considering moving the person sideways to another role or team before moving that person out of the organisation completely. These kinds of moves can be hard, but a good leader seeks to find a place where an individual can thrive, even if it is outside their group.

High-will and low-skill: Guide

If someone is enthusiastic but does not necessarily have the right skills or experience, then they fall into the high-will/low-skill category. Here a leader needs to Guide the team member.

When a person is motivated, the role of the manager is to focus that energy and provide the information or instruction needed to complete a task. In this way the leader can be seen as a guide or mentor, supporting the worker by helping them fill in gaps in their knowledge.

Subjects who fall into this quadrant have great growth opportunities and so a manager can use tools such as Kolb’s learning styles and the GROW model to help identify approaches and tasks to develop the individual.

A typical example of someone in this scenario would be a new graduate who might be very intelligent with high energy levels but lacking some experience and specific industry know-how. The trick here is to help the person develop their skills without them losing their motivation.

There is also a potential win-win opportunity here to develop people from two different quadrants. Someone from the high-skill but low-will zone might prove to be a good mentor for those in the high-will/low-skill area. In this way, the experienced person can take on this guiding or mentoring role and hopefully, they will find this motivating, increasing their will while helping the other person to up-skill.

Low-will and high-skill: Excite

A person who lacks enthusiasm but has the necessary know-how falls into the low-will/high-skill bracket. Here the leader needs to Excite the team member by finding ways to increase their will and energy levels.

Long-term team members can sometimes fall into this category. They have all the skills they need to do their job but have lost some of their mojo. If work starts to feel stale or dull, then they lose their enthusiasm. The danger here is that this lack of drive can be infectious and impact other members of the team, particularly new ones who might look up to these experienced team members.

In this situation, a manager must find what is going to motivate that person. What are their drivers? A conversation about personal values could illuminate their passions. Exploring their work-life balance, using a tool such as the Wheel of Life, could also be helpful. This can unearth new goals or areas of growth to help motivate the individual.

As mentioned in the high-will/low-skill section, there is an opportunity to team up with more experienced (but less motivated) employees with energetic (but less competent) team members. This can help both parties move up to the high-will/high-skill zone, while also sharing out some of the management burden of the team leader.

High-will and high-skill: Delegate

If people are both able and willing then they fall into the top right quadrant, that of high-will and high-skill personnel. Leaders can Delegate to these individuals, trusting that they can do the job.

This is the ideal quadrant for managers and team members alike. Being able to delegate effectively empowers the individual and allows the leader to think of longer-term issues, such as business development or the further career development of individuals.

Career development becomes an even more important question for team members in this quadrant as they are the most likely people to be promoted, or who get poached by other teams or organisations. One of the biggest frustrations – but equally the most satisfying aspects of leadership – is seeing one’s best people outgrow the team.

Therefore, it is vital that the leader continues to find new challenges and growth opportunities for the people who fall into this zone. A boss can take on more of a coaching leadership style with a light-touch management approach. A manager needs to create space for creativity and should be comfortable with taking more risks with the individual.

An example of the potential pitfalls of the Skill-Will matrix

I once had an excellent employee who sat in the top, high-will/high-skill quadrant of the matrix. They were experienced, an old hand at the job, but still maintained high energy levels that bolstered the team as a whole. They were a good mentor for new team members, and I often delegated leadership responsibility to them in my absence.

So, when I asked this person to organise a team social, I thought nothing of it, I expected a great result. The problem was that the event was a disaster. The timing, location and expense of the event meant that it would not have got the participation I wanted and therefore I had to intervene and organise the event myself. This was largely a failure on my part.

I was lulled by the Halo Effect, a cognitive bias where I assumed that because this person was good at one thing, then they would be good at another. Here, the person in question was excellent at technical work, and in these circumstances, they were high-will/high-skill. But when I gave them a team-building task this pushed them into a high-will/low-skill situation. Because I did not realise this, I had to take their task away and this damaged their motivation, pushing them into the high-skill/low-will area for a while. It took some coaching from me to get them back on track again.

The point of this example is that don’t assume that people remain static in these quadrants. A change in role, task or situation can easily push people out of their zone – for better or worse – and therefore the leader needs to have good situational awareness and be constantly assessing their people to keep applying the best managerial tactic.

How to use the skill-will matrix

I like the Skill-Will matrix as a leadership approach and management tool as it is so easy to remember and apply. I also like the fact that it was developed from a coaching perspective and forces the leader to think about the way to get the best out of each team member.

If you want to assess someone in your team and modify your leadership style to suit them, then use the Skill-Will matrix. Think of the matrix as a graph and then score the person against each axis to help quantify your thoughts by following these steps:

1. First, think of their skill level. What is their training, competency, or experience for the task at hand? Give them a rating of 1-10.
2. Then think of their will. What are their motivation levels? How energised are they to take on the project? Give this a rating of 1-10
3. Now plot these scores onto the Skill-Will table with 1-5 being low and 6-10 being high on each axis.
4. Pick the appropriate style accordingly.

And remember, we all have our preferred style of leading so it might feel uncomfortable to change that style at first. But, as with fitness, the more you work on your flexibility, the easier that stretching of approaches becomes.

Earlier in my career, when I was working as a project manager, I ended up working on one of the largest building projects in London for one of the most successful property developers in the business. The guy was rich, was the boss of a large team, owned a powerful organisation and achieved big results. He was certainly an effective property developer. I also knew that his methods for achieving this success were questionable and I hated working for him. So was he a good leader?

What makes an effective leader?

If we want to think about what makes a good or effective leader, we must first define what leadership is. W.C.H. Prentice, in his famous HBR article of 1961 defined leadership as:

“The accomplishment of a goal through the direction of human assistants”

But this definition does not quite capture the ideas of some types of leadership such as self-leadership, 360-degree leadership, or even thought-leadership. Therefore, my favourite definition of leadership is that of John Maxwell who says that leadership is, in its essence, influence. Thus, I would define leaders as people who use their influence (or power) to initiate change.

So, by logical extension, we can now define what effective leadership is. An effective leader does the same but can accomplish bigger goals, with more people. They have a greater level of influence and bring about larger change.

But again, here we see that effective leadership is not necessarily identical to good leadership. For example, Stalin led huge numbers of people and Hitler had a massive influence, but few people would describe them as good leaders.

What makes a good leader?

Thus, now we must define what we mean by good, which is a little more tricky. In fact, it is often easier to describe what bad or toxic leadership looks like (particularly if we are working for the leader in question!) As Barbara Kellerman captured in her work identifying the 7 Types of Bad Leaders, we can (hopefully) spot leaders who are incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, or plain evil.

Kellerman’s model follows the trait theory of leadership and we could come up with an alternative list of positive qualities to reflect a good leader. Qualities such as integrity, confidence and self-awareness are frequently on such lists but these characteristics – positive or negative – can be boiled down to certain behaviours. These behaviours are, in turn, just the outward manifestation of choices. Therefore, we know whether a leader is good or bad by their decisions.

How do you good (or ethical) decisions?

There is a long history of thinking about how to make good decisions. Much of our understanding in this area reaches back to the fathers of philosophy such as Confucius (551–479 BCE) and Socrates (469-399 BCE). In philosophical terms, this field of study is known as ethics. Ethics is the study of right and wrong and the examination of the moral principles that drive good behaviour. Ethical decisions can therefore be thought of as good decisions.

There are various schools of ethics, such as deontology, consequentialism and utilitarianism but I want to focus on virtue ethics, which is most concerned with the values or moral character that drives good behaviour.  It is these virtues or tenets that help someone make good decisions.

Virtues are positive values. By contrast, we would label negative values as vices. The idea is that these principles drive good behaviour and build healthy habits. For example, the virtue of temperance (one of the virtues championed by Aristotle) informs the decision to moderate what we eat, which leads to healthier lifestyles.

Values-based decision-making

The great thing about virtues or values-based decision-making is that, in psychological terms, it informs both our system 1 (intuitive) and system 2 (rational) decision-making. In other words, the values we choose to live by help our conscious and unconscious decision-making because the more we actively decide to behave according to a value, the more second nature that becomes. Proactive decision-making using virtues builds useful heuristics and habits.

But this is reliant upon knowing the right values, or virtues, upon which to act. Here things do become more subjective as there have been many lists or interpretations of virtue from Plato to Hume and Aristotle to Nietzsche. More recently, research shows differences in values from the male and female perspectives (Gilligan, 1982).

Whichever list we construct, the principles we live by are a mixture of social values (ones that we share with others due to our birthplace, culture, or workplace) and individual values (the precepts that we prioritise personally). If you have not done so already, it is worth identifying and reflecting upon both these corporate and personal values and how they inform your decisions.

How to become a good leader

Identifying your personal values is just one step on the road to becoming of good character and a good leader. There are other ways we develop good character in addition to knowing our values. Fortunately, psychological research at Oxford University has identified seven key strategies that reinforce this development, as outlined below:

The Oxford Character Project: 7 Strategies for Character Development:

• Role models
• Reflection
• Language
• Systems
• Reminders
• Friendships
• Practice

By employing these strategies we can accelerate and reinforce the development of good character. For example:

Role models

Role models are exemplars, people whom we look up to because of something we value in that person. It is therefore important to pick the right role models as we will become like whomever we choose to follow.

Reflection

If we are going to improve our character and leadership then we need time for personal reflection. We might achieve this in various ways (for example finding a place with no distractions or going for a walk) but whatever our preferred method it requires an investment of time to do it properly. Self-reflection is a critical stage of experiential learning – we cannot develop effectively without it.

Language

How we talk about things is important. Words are the outward expression of our inner thoughts. Our language indicates what is going on beneath the surface in the iceberg of our character, revealing our beliefs, values and fears. So, we need to be mindful of what we say. Also, when we learn new terms and language, we open ourselves to new opportunities and ideas.

Systems

A lot of our behaviour is driven by systems or processes. Many of these we are barely aware of most of the time as they are sub-conscious heuristics. Reflection can help us identify these systems and also help us put new systems in place. When we want to develop a new habit (especially something that doesn’t come naturally) we need to put new systems in place to help embed behaviour.

Reminders

We all need reminders, and our brains react to reminders (as app developers well know!) Reminders help us stay the course, keeping us consistent on the way to developing new habits and better character.

Friendships

Friendships provide us with support and accountability on the road to good character. A true friend will challenge us as well as give us the encouragement we need.

Practice

Practice allows us to experiment and learn. As we refine our knowledge through this experience, we also build habits that reinforce that learning and good behaviour. In the end, we become what we repeatedly do.

Even good leaders make mistakes

It is worth noting that even good leaders make mistakes. We all have to accept, that on our journey of character development, we will at times fail. We will mess up frequently, but that is just part of learning.

Our mistakes can also empower others in their journey. As Brené Brown points out in her excellent book Dare to Lead, if we dare to be vulnerable and admit our mistakes that makes us more accessible as leaders, gives others a chance to learn from our mishaps, and creates an environment of phycological safety where people feel they can take risks too.

Taking a step towards becoming a good leader

I strongly believe that we are all leaders because we all have a measure of influence. We can develop that leadership to become ever more effective (and powerful) but that is of less importance than making sure we are good leaders.

“Whatever you are, be a good one.”

Abraham Lincoln

To be a good leader we need to make good or ethical decisions. Therefore, we need to know the values that we live by.

If we want to make good decisions, we need to build good character, and that can be done through having good role models, taking time for self-reflection, using language, building systems, creating reminders, fostering friendships and deliberate practice.

We will make mistakes, but these are just part of the learning journey. We will trip, so we just need to ensure that we fall forward, towards our goal.

And why is this important? Because our character and where we end up is the cumulation of the decisions we make. If we want to end up in a good place, we need to make good decisions. As legendary Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu observed:

“Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny.”

Lao Tzu

When I was about ten years old, I decided to run away from home and ran (unexpectedly) into an ethical issue. I can’t remember exactly why I wanted to run away (as my life wasn’t exactly bad) but I do remember that I strolled out of the house carrying nothing but a penknife. I was obviously confident in my survival skills and overly trusting that warm weather would continue!

With my elementary school logic, I decided that a hole in the ground – in the woods not far from my house – was the obvious place to start my new life. As this den was also known to my friends it was not long before one stumbled across me as I cleared the twigs from my future bed space.

“What are you doing?” My friend asked me. “Making camp.” I replied, “I have run away from home so don’t tell anyone!”

My friend wandered off and I continued working. Then, about twenty minutes later my friend arrived back. Behind him stood my dad. I remember looking into my friend’s eyes, feeling betrayed but also knowing they had done the right thing. I was outraged and relieved all at the same time.

What are ethics and why are they important?

At that stage in life, I had no idea what ethics was, but I did intuitively know that my friend made a courageous moral decision that day. Ethics is simply that; it is making good or right choices. That includes big ethical dilemmas, such should we limit artificial intelligence or genetic engineering, right through to more everyday choices, such as whether you help yourself to extra stationery at the office for personal use at home.

Making good decisions is not easy. We might have an intuitive feel of what is right or wrong but sometimes the answer is not obvious. This is particularly the case when various values come under tension.

Taking my running away as an example, my friend had to balance the value of loyalty against that of care. Loyalty might have persuaded them to keep quiet as I had shared something in confidence, but out of care for me they knew the right thing was to tell my parents.

Therefore, sometimes values on their own are not sufficient. In these moments, where good values are in tension, we can employ a decision-making tool to help make the best ethical choice.

How to make ethical decisions

One such technique has been developed by The Ethics Centre in Australia. The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation that promotes the use of ethics in everyday life and decision-making. They suggest a decision-making model based on considering values, principles, and purpose.

In this context (and using the wording of The Ethics Centre):

• Values tell us what’s good – they’re the things we strive for, desire, and seek to protect.
• Principles tell us what’s right – outlining how we may or may not achieve our values.
• Purpose is your reason for being – it gives life to your values and principles.

Of course, to employ this methodology you must first know what your values, principles and purpose are, so let’s take some time to consider each in turn.

Values

Values are things we give worth, things we prioritise. The values (or virtues) we aspire to come in different forms, such as:

• Personal values (the ones we prioritise as an individual)
• Corporate values (the ones we hold in a community or organization such as a company’s values)
• Universal values (ones that are held in common more globally such as the UN Charter of Human Rights)

Therefore, the starting point, when making a decision, is working out which values are the most important ones in the circumstance. If you have never properly identified your values, then I would recommend you discover your top 3 personal values.

Principles

Principles help us think about what is right or wrong and, in this way, they complement values. These principles are essentially algorithms for behaviour. For example, when working in the British Army and considering a course of action the principles I was taught to apply can be summed up in the following question:

“Is this action lawful, appropriate, and professional?”

Many of our principles have a basis in religion. For example, one of the principles I (like many) try to live by is the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is the idea of treating others as we would like to be treated and this precept is reflected in various spiritual traditions. For example, the Hindu Mahabharata states:

“One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one’s own self.”

Mahābhārata 13.114.8

Or in the teachings of the Buddha:

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

Udanavarga 5:18

And similarly, Jesus of Nazareth said:

“Do to others what you want them to do to you.”

Matthew 7:12

So, as with values, there are some common themes, but it is also worth reflecting upon the specific principles you hold to. This can be done systematically if you take time to reflect on how you make decisions. This reflective process will start to reveal the underlying principles you use.

If you would like to explore more on identifying and developing principles, then I recommend reading Ray Dalio’s book Principles where you can see how this process can be done on both a personal and organisational level.

Purpose

Similarly, to values and principles, there can be overlapping ideas of purpose. These might be:

• Individual purpose – your own sense of personal purpose
• Professional purpose – the specific purpose we have in a given work role
• Organisational purpose – the mission statement of a team or business your work for

To understand purpose and make it measurable it is advisable to create a clear and concise mission statement. A good purpose statement is a definition of success, within a given context.

For example, my own mission statement is:

 “To serve people by helping them unlock their leadership, in order to support them on their adventure.”

In this case, my personal purpose statement also encompasses my top three values of service, leadership, and adventure (but this does not have to be the case). For example, Oprah Winfrey’s purpose statement is:

“To be a teacher. And to be known for inspiring my students to be more than they thought they could be.”

What I find useful about this (and good purpose statements in general) is they can give a measure of success against different time scales. Both the mission statements above can be used to consider achievement in a day, week, year, or lifetime. These statements also help to analyse whether decisions have worked towards the good and successful outcome of the stated purpose.

Factors that impact good decision-making and ethical choices

Even after identifying our values, principles, and purpose, or those specific to a given ethical problem, there are still factors that can impact making a good choice. Most of these factors relate to cognitive bias, the subconscious rules of thumb we use to help us make quick decisions.

To minimise the negative impacts of cognitive bias it is worth considering the following:

• Education and training. Learn about decision-making and the different types of cognitive bias
• Diversity of thought. Bring different perspectives to a team or decision
• Build a culture that allows challenge. Create a culture around you where people are more likely to challenge or call out bad behaviour and decisions (even if that is just a good friend who will be brutally honest with you)

The three things to help you make good ethical decisions

Therefore, if you want to make ethical decisions you need to first know your values, principles, and purpose. Then, while allowing for cognitive bias, you can then balance these three elements against each other to make your choice.

This does not mean you will immediately come up with an answer. If you are new to exploring values, principles, and purpose then that will likely throw up challenges and questions to work through before you even get back to the ethical problem you are facing!

But don’t despair. The search for good outcomes and truth is a journey, not a single destination. It should inspire personal reflection, critical thinking, and the sort of discourse that Socrates would be proud of. And that quality thinking leads to good actions, and as Martin Luther King said:

“The time is always right, to do what is right.”

Why every leader should know David Patreaus’ 4 stages of creating and Implementing Effective Strategy

Who can you think of who has genuinely created and implemented an effective strategy?

Plenty of people profess to have done this but few have accomplished this feat on the international stage or at the Grand Strategic level.

As we will see, from someone who actually has some credibility (no, I don’t mean me!), an effective strategy can be implemented in 4 steps.

But before we get onto this, what does strategy really mean anyway?

It is an overused term, and this can cause confusion. You might hear someone say, “My strategic approach is to…” and then list a series of goals. That is not a strategy. Neither is it the same as a mission or vision statement.

Strategy made simple

Strategy comes from the Greek word Strategos, which means military general. The General was the commander who gave the overarching directive to an army; the conceptual framework of how to defeat the enemy.

We might not be facing a real-life enemy, but we are sure to face challenges, which is why modern interpretations of strategy substitute these terms. For example, Richard Rumelt, author of Good Strategy, Bad Strategy defines strategy as

“A strategy coordinates action to address a specific challenge.”

In other words, it is the ends, ways and means of success, which itself is another good definition of strategy, still used by militaries today.

“Strategy equals ends (objectives toward which one strives) plus ways (courses of action) plus means (instruments by which some end can be achieved).”
Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr

Somewhat unsurprisingly, in terms of practical application, examples and theoretical principles, the military is still a primary source for the understanding of strategy. David Petraeus (retired US Army General) is a classic example of someone who has created and seen through an effective strategy at a genuinely strategic level.

Who is General David Petraeus anyway?

For those unaware, David Petraeus is a retired General, who commanded at the highest levels, and is also a former Director of the CIA. Suffice to say, having wielded that degree of power, he knows a thing or two about strategy.

Most importantly he knows how to implement one.

This is perhaps best illustrated by his time as overall commander of coalition forces in Iraq in 2007. The situation he inherited was certainly a strategic problem.

At the start of 2007, the US military was sustaining around 100 fatalities per month and around 700 wounded, while civilian casualties were around 1500 a month. Baghdad was effectively lawless and local militias as well as insurgents, of various ideologies, rampaged around the country causing mayhem.

Yes, I hear some of you say, this was a problem partly of the coalition’s making, and yes, there you have a point. In fact, the lack of a coherent long-term political strategy (beyond the military one) in Iraq was a large cause of this situation. But the challenge in 2007 remained, and General Petraeus was chosen to tackle the immediate issue of the horrific death rate.

The Surge Strategy in Iraq

After going through proper problem analysis, Petraeus developed the ‘Surge’ strategy. On the face of things, this could have been seen as just an increase in troop numbers, but it was a lot more than that. The plan recognised that previously the military had been using many wrong ways and means. It needed new ideas. Therefore, the surge was not just an increase of 30 000 troops but also encompassed new counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine, changing the ways and means that would be used to stabilise the country (the ends).

The success of The Surge can be seen in numbers. Civilian casualties quickly reduced in 2007 and fatalities from mid-2008 to mid-2011 fell to around 200 a month. US fatalities dropped to fewer than 11 per month in the same period. Overall, the surge strategy resulted in nearly a ten-fold reduction of fatalities from 2006 figures.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates described Patreus’ ‘Surge’ campaign in Iraq in 2007 as the

“Translation of a great strategy into a great success in very difficult circumstances.”

Patraeus after the Surge

Petraeus did implement a successful strategy in Iraq but that does not make him perfect. He, like any senior leader, did not always succeed (he was not quite able to replicate the success of Iraq in Afghanistan due to the vastly different circumstances) and he messed up badly too (Petraeus had to step down as director of the CIA after it was revealed he was having an affair with his biographer).

As well as recognising that these failings just make Petraeus human, he is easier to respect in the aftermath as he has been willing to admit and address his faults (a virtue not seen in some very senior figures).

Petraeus, though nominally retired, is still very active. He is a visiting professor to prestigious universities across the world, and, due to his strategic wisdom, serves as an advisor and board member to multiple diverse organisations. So, even with his faults, his strategic mind is still highly valued.

Therefore, when he says something about strategy, I take note. Recently, he shared his four steps to developing an effective strategy at the Royal United Services Institute (the defence and security think-tank) and so I thought I would share these and some reflections upon his framework.

The 4 Steps of Developing a Highly Effective Strategy

Patreus describes the following four steps as his “intellectual construct for strategic leadership.” In other words, this is not just about creating a strategy, or having the leadership to implement one, it is both combined.

Task 1: Brainstorming

The first step is to get the big ideas right, and that is dependent upon understanding the problem. The problem is made up of various factors too, such as mission analysis (assessing what you must do) and situational analysis (getting a deep understanding of the circumstances).

You have a better chance of analysing the problem and coming up with novel solutions if you have real cognitive diversity. Petraeus sought out scholars and deep thinkers to help him with this problem analysis. This included people who would challenge ideas. This is vital as a leader surrounded by sycophants will eventually come undone from hearing what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

Once problem analysis is complete then the brainstorming can enter a phase of creating options or courses of action. Options are then evaluated, and the leader (commander) makes their decision of which course of action they want to pursue.

So, the key question for a leader at this stage is:

How can you create the best team to understand the problem and come up with creative solutions?

Task 2: Communicating

Once the leader has decided upon the preferred course of action, that big idea can then be communicated. Now the challenge is working out who you need to communicate to and how.

There may be many stakeholders inside and outside the organisation that need to hear the message. In the case of Petraeus, during The Surge it was not just the soldiers who needed to know the strategy; it was everyone from the Pentagon in the US and coalition partners, right through to the local population and insurgents.

And each stakeholder group has different information needs and so an engagement strategy becomes a sub-set of the overall strategy. This includes stakeholder mapping and thinking about how each group needs to be informed and what influence you want.

For example, Petraeus wanted to communicate with the local population and the end result was that he wanted trust and support – rather than hostility – so he needed to achieve a shift in mentality. Even for the coalition forces there needed to be a shift in mentality as they were going to have to change how they were going about their operations up to that point.

So, communication needs to be clear, as concise as possible and targeted to get people engaged and, where possible, empowered to support the strategy. When you are thinking of how to deliver the message a good starting point is The Rule of 3, which provides an easy structure to follow.

Therefore, the key question for the leader at this stage is:

Whom do I need to inform, how do I best communicate and what is the impact I want to have?

Task 3: Implementing

Once communicated, the next stage is implementation. This requires breaking down the big idea into an action plan. In military terms, this is the campaign plan where different lines of effort work together to achieve the desired end state.

But a good plan is not enough on its own. Effective implementation requires good leadership. The strategic leader knows how to adapt their style to best influence each team member or stakeholder. For example, influencing sceptics might require a more transactional approach as they might not buy into the vision of transformational leadership. So, the principal needs to be able to apply situational leadership whilst remaining authentic.

As with the brainstorming stage, the strategic leader needs a great team around them for the best chance of success. Being a strategic leader means selecting and supporting the right champions to lead each element of the plan.

Therefore, for implementation, the leader needs to ask:

How do I turn this strategic idea into an actionable plan and who can best realise each element?

Task 4: Assessing

Never assume a plan is set in stone. As Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke stated:

“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”

In other words, it does not matter how good your idea is, when that plan interacts with the real world (and the many factors you could never foresee) the strategy will need to evolve.

We live in a rapidly changing world. Good leaders expect to refine their strategy is this VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) environment. What’s more, the ability to assess how effective a strategy is, and then adapt plans to improve them, is the mark of a high-performing team as well as a great leader.

A high-performing team retains a growth mindset, learns from failure and drives their continual improvement by constantly assessing what to start, stop or continue within the given plan.

Therefore, for the leader at this stage, the critical question becomes:

How do we improve the plan and reinforce success; what do we need to start, stop, or continue doing?

The Strategic Cycle: How to Create and Implement an Effective Strategy

David Petraeus’s strategic framework is very simple on the surface. The four stages of brainstorming,communicating, implementing, and assessing, create an easy-to-remember cycle.

And strategy is cyclical. One situation and set of effects lead to another. This was particularly true for Petraeus who went from overseeing The Surge in Iraq to being the commander in Afghanistan. This was a very different set of circumstances but one impacted by his own strategy in Iraq (namely the draw of resources from one area to another).

You may not be playing on the world stage but whatever level of leadership you aspire to, this strategic cycle can help you. Even if you are just working on your own and facing some big problem, the stages still hold true.

So, think, what is the biggest challenge you are facing right now? What can you do to brainstorm new ways of addressing the issue? What do you need to communicate? How will you best implement the plan to resolve the issue and how can you keep assessing your progress?

What is the one thing that wastes most of your time at work?

You might have said ‘emails’, you might even have said ‘that annoying colleague who always hangs around my desk’, but most likely you will have said ‘meetings’.

That is because most employees face meetings overload in their workplace, and arguably it is worst for executives who (according to the Harvard Business Review) spend an average of nearly 23 hours per week in meetings.

But crazy meeting schedules impact everyone in an organisation, and bad meetings are not just wasting people’s time, they are also losing money. Professor Steven Rogelberg conducted research showing that for a company of 5000+ employees, time misspent in meetings equated to around $25,000 per employee annually; that’s over $100 million per year in large companies.

So why do we have so many unproductive and ineffective meetings?

The secret (or common sense) behind running effective meetings

The problem is that most meetings just exist. Someone set them up, way back in the distant past, they entered a schedule and then people just attend them. No one stops to ask the right questions; those that will ensure a good meeting.

I have seen and continue to see this first-hand in the public, private and voluntary sectors. I have worked as a leader, managing things directly for organisations, and as a coach and facilitator, consulting back into these various spheres. Over the years, I have organised and attended countless meetings, from the very good to the very bad, and yes, sometimes I have been guilty of holding unnecessary meetings too.

Whether you are organising, facilitating, or attending a meeting, for it to be productive, you need to know the why, what, where, which, who, how and when of the meeting. Let’s explore that further by expanding these interrogatives and asking the essential questions.

Why do you need the meeting?

The first and most important thing you must ascertain is why you need a meeting.

Think about the meetings you attend. For each one, what is the reason for the meeting? Why does that meeting exist? If you cannot answer that question, I would suggest you either find a ‘why’ for going along, or you should remove yourself from the invitation list.

Every meeting should have a defined purpose. If you are planning a meeting, you must know clearly why the meeting needs to take place and then properly communicate that to the relevant stakeholders.

And that ‘why’ should not just be ‘to get the team together’ or ‘to help communication’. These reasons are too vague. The purpose needs to fulfil some need or solve a problem that you are facing. Don’t move on to the other questions until you have answered this question (or just don’t have the meeting).

What does success look like for the meeting?

Once you know why you want to hold a meeting, the next task is to define what success looks like; in other words, what do you want to achieve by the end of the meeting?

The why and the what are related but subtly different. For example, the reason for the meeting could be that it is a kick-off meeting, the first time everyone is getting together. That is the why. Success in this instance might be that everyone leaves the meeting having met all the team members and understanding everyone’s roles. That is the what.

How you define the outcome of the meeting then shapes the agenda. The agenda can be thought of as a mini action plan with the agenda items being the tasks required to get to the desired end-state.

Where is the best place for the meeting to take place?

Location is important. Where you hold the meeting and how that space is set up will have a large impact on the feel and flow of the gathering.

For example, if you meet in a large boardroom, with someone at the head of a huge table, people will naturally defer to that person. This is good for giving direction, but less good if you are wanting participation and creativity. For the latter, you might want to find a more neutral space with a variety of break-out areas and no imposed feeling of hierarchy.

Be creative with your meeting space. Sometimes even changing the location of a regular gathering can help breathe new life into it. I am a great fan of getting outside whenever possible. For example, my favourite one-to-one meetings are walking meetings but I also run workshops and other types of meetings outdoors.

Which type of meeting will create the right outcome?

The idea of a specific type of meeting is linked to the purpose and success of the meeting. Therefore, defining the kind of meeting will refine the why and the what, as well as inform your choice of location. Identifying the nature of the meeting with also help to scope the following questions covering the who, whatand when of the meeting.

There are lots of types of meetings but most fall into the following categories:

• Briefing, information sharing or presenting. This is usually biased towards one-way communication of key data.
• Decision-making. Here the purpose and outcome of the meeting are shaped by a specific decision or set of choices.
• Problem-solving. In this case, it is a problem that is the focus of the meeting.
• Brainstorming, creativity, or innovation. These meetings are all about generating new ideas or approaches.
• Team building. Every team requires proactive effort to build them up, but the approach depends upon where they are in terms of team development.
• Kick-off or project start. Any new initiative should have a proper kick-off.
• Catch-up, check-in or status update. Most teams have these sorts of meetings, but these need to be well-disciplined to be effective.
• Planning, progress, and performance.  This covers many management functions such as event planning meetings, quarterly reports, and project progress updates.
• One-to-one. Person-to-person meetings can include interviews, coaching, mentoring, and performance meetings. These are just as important to plan as a large gathering.

Whom do you need at the meeting?

There is an art to identifying who you need in any given meeting. Too few people and you might not have the cognitive diversity, experience, or decision-making power to achieve your aim. Too many people and meetings can become bloated, over-long, and it will be hard to achieve consensus.

Meetings take up people’s time, their most precious resource, so be ruthless. Only invite the people who really need to be there. And if that means people only attend certain agenda items and then leave, that’s fine. Don’t make people sit through things that are not relevant to them; they will not thank you for it.

A good rule of thumb is the cocktail party rule. If you watch a room at a party, groups will rarely exceed eight people because this becomes a natural limit to inclusive conversations. Therefore meetings, particularly if you want to get a decision, should generally consist of fewer than 8 people.

If you are wanting to brainstorm something you could push attendance closer to twenty people, although you will want chances to work in smaller groups during the workshop. And if you are just communicating information didactically then there is no real limit (it could be thousands). This approach can be remembered as the 8-18-1800 rule. In other words, 8 people for decisions, 18 for brainstorming, and 1800 for one-way communications.

How should you best run the meeting?

Effective meetings require leadership. The management style that you adopt depends upon the type of meeting and what you want to achieve. For example, if the aim is to pass on information, then the leadership style is likely to be more directive, as you tell people what to do. If you want new ideas, then your approach will be more facilitative, ensuring that everyone contributes and has a voice.

How you craft the agenda can also support the leadership approach you adopt, particularly if people see the agenda before the meeting (which should be the case in most instances). For example, if you want contributions from the team you can craft each section of the agenda accordingly. The first item might be a check-in where everyone has a few seconds to say how they are feeling and what they are thinking. The next item might break down the team into smaller discussion groups before bringing back the key points to the full group. The important thing is to consider the best format for achieving each element of the agenda and how it builds towards the aim you set in question two (the what).

When should the meeting take place, and for how long?

The answer to this question very much depends on the type of meeting you are planning and the exact end-state you want to achieve.

In terms of length, think about what you want to achieve. Meetings span everything from the 5-10 minute standing team meeting that might happen at the beginning of a day, to the whole day creative workshop which is designed to come up with new ideas.

The scheduling of the meeting is then largely dependent upon the length. The longer the meeting, the longer the lead time you will need to give. The more people outside your immediate team that you want to have involved, and the more senior those people are, the further into the future you are going to need to plan. Going back to the previous example, you can call a quick stand-up meeting with only a few hours notice (if that), but an all-day workshop happening offsite is likely to need weeks (if not months) to schedule.

Before you have a meeting, ask these essential questions

In our work, we are inevitably going to spend many hours in meetings. Therefore, to ensure these are productive it is worth spending a few minutes answering these questions for each gathering you organise or attend:

• Why do you need the meeting?
• What does success look like for the meeting?
• Where is the best place for the meeting to take place?
• Which type of meeting will create the right outcome?
• Whom do you need at the meeting?
• How should you best run the meeting?
• When should the meeting take place, and for how long?

And don’t stop asking these questions. What is true one week may not be true another week. Do not become a slave to a meeting schedule or make the meeting a habit you forget to challenge.

Leadership is an opportunity to bring positive change, no matter where you are in an organisation. So, how can you improve your meeting culture today? This might require challenging the status quo – which can be difficult – but if you can find more effective, productive and time-efficient ways to meet, you will win friends in the end!